When I was in university at a time on the brink of the computer age, doing research meant going into an archive and bring out clusters of maps around a topic. All communications, e.g. missives, letters, internal documents, drafts, media, etc., could be found in such maps, where I could have them copied or could take notes from. On these documents it was completely clear who had added what to the first, the second, etc., draft, all the way up to the minister. That sort of research is no more for future and current scientists of modern history.

When I became a civil servant the work was digitalised, although I still worked with a paper file. What was printed and filed was the outcome document. All the versions in between were in maps on my computer or pieces of paper thrown away after use, later in a central database and probably by now in the cloud. When I stopped being a civil servant I was asked to delete most of my maps. In other words destroyed most of the files of potential interest to future historians.

Communities and archiving

The recent news that local councils have problems with archiving, because of systems or tools they can’t access any more, does not surprise me (see: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/111517/steekproef-gemeenten-hebben-problemen-met-archief-door-opslag-op-floppys.html?nb=2016-05-21&u=0900). Any one who lived through the change from Word Perfect to Word, knows that after a while these documents couldn’t be accessed. So if a pc no longer has a floppy driver, first the soft big ones and then the small hard ones, how is someone to access the floppies? It’s nothing new, that happened to older systems as well, but they were not as commonly used. Still, the people with that experience could have sounded some more alarm bells. People just don’t learn it seems.

It’s far worse

As I started with, archiving has in part become a private consideration. What does somebody keep or not? A finger on the delete button is an easy and very private decision for the past two decades. This way a lot of the reasons behind decisions and outcomes in public and private realms are no longer existent. Someone deleted them, by request, through leaving, having too many maps or for whatever reason. This unconscious, perhaps unlawful, deleting prevents organisations from learning lessons from its own past and historians from coming to weighed and informed conclusions in the future.

The world does not have to store everything, but a conscious decision following the local law would be a fair judgement to go by.

This post I’ve been pondering on for a long time, but never found the right angle and perhaps I still haven’t. Basically I have these observations, thoughts, ideas and a truckload of questions. Where to start? With the future prospects of us all. Thomas Picketty showed us the rise of inequality. He was recently joined by Robert J. Gordon who not only joins Picketty, but adds that we live in a period of stagnation, for decades already. “All great inventions lie over 40 years and more behind us”, he points out. In stark contradiction to the jubilant voices of Silicon Valley. The end of Moore’s law was announced for the world to read in The Economist of mid March. So where does that leave the continuous growth of The Internet of Things? Is this ending good for employment? Will that stifle the rise of populism and angry white men feeling left out?

What a job does
That last thing is why the rise of robots, artificial intelligence and algorithms puzzles me so much. In order to spend money (on whatever), people have to make money and most do so through a job. Next to that a job provides a feeling of belonging, a purpose in life, regularity and a sense of fulfilment when something gets done. On top of that money comes in.

The rise of the masses
In the 19th century the slow rise from poverty of the masses started in the western world. Probably urged by the rise of socialism and communism employers gave away some rights, started paying better wages and the world changed in many ways because of that. People all got wealthier and healthier. Governments could levy more taxes, making it possible to work on great projects that made life better again. And employers got richer as well, being able to sell more produce to the workers they paid ever better. Think Henry Ford who not only started the mass production of cars, but also enabled his employees to buy them from him.

Enter the robots
This all stops when people are replaced by things, whether a robot or a machine on algorithms. No pay means poverty, eviction from houses, less health, no education. From an economic point of view it means that less and less products are sold. So where is the economic rationale behind this race to the automated bottom? No demand in the end leads to no supply and no profit for the AI and robot owners and manufacturers. And to economic decline. Gordon seems to be right there.

‘Free money’
So will Patti Smith be right in the end? Will we all get free money (yes, I know it’s a cover, but my favourite version of the song) or helicopter money as they call it in 2016? Aside from the fact that this money has to come from somewhere, it does not take into account the other less tangible features of having a job. Those features that all together lead to grave discontent when they are not met.

The end of Moore’s law.
So is the end of Moore’s law a blessing in disguise? If the rise of processing power is stopped in its tracks, is that a good thing for employment? Especially for the middle class?

There’s no way of telling of course. When Thomas Maltus predicted his disasters for human kind in the late 18th century, the Industrial Revolution came along changing the game as Gordon writes on. Malthus’ prediction became obsolete fast, although it is used often in other ways.

Major breakthroughs?
The world as we know it may be on the brink of major breakthroughs in IT as The Economist article gives a few insights on. A lot is uncertain though as researchers run into great challenges, for years on end already. There’s no predicting a breakthrough as a lot are stumbled upon by accident.

IT breakthroughs do tend to come with a loss of jobs. A reason a lot of people live in fear that their children will not live in a better world. Come in Trump, Pegida, Geert Wilders, Brexit, Marine le Pen, Beppe Grillo, etc., etc. People and movements that feed on and spread fear, but offer not one single solution to one of the major challenges this world faces. Unless you take the shooting of refugees at the border as a serious option of course.

As a question in this category. Recently several chains of department and retail stores keeled over in The Netherlands. There are several reasons attributed to the bankruptcies, but one of them is the rise of webstores. Online shopping is not replacing shopping in general (yet?), but the loss of how many percentages in sales are enough to facilitate the bankruptcy of the physical store? This is an interesting question to answer though. I never read it so far. Thousands of people lost their jobs. Are there new ones for them and in what sector(s)? It’d be interesting to learn this too.

The future seems bleak to many
At the Internet Governance Forum workshop organised by NLIGF, just like the workshop in The Netherlands on this topic, it was hard to find a person who spoke out in favour of current developments, except from a technical point of view. Conclusions were the following. Education runs horribly behind demand, algorithms are a black box in the hands of the private sector, privacy is in danger, as is employment, politicians do not understand the implications of current developments. Most participants, over one hundred at both sessions, saw a bleak future if the current developments do not changed course for the better.

Political leadership?
We live in interesting times, that much is for certain. Where we are heading I just don’t know. What I would appreciate is to have politicians that lead, explain, decide. In short: indicate what they are about. And I don’t mean a strong muscle like in a few countries not too far away from here is the standard. No. I’m looking for leadership in the current politicians in power in the western world. Who stand for what they do, explain in a clear way why their solution is the right one and start making decisions on an ICT world, the second machine age or fourth industrial revolution, whatever you like to call it. What is acceptable and what not, so we all live in a society where we can fulfil our lives in meaningful ways. A form of leadership that is frighteningly missing.

To conclude
Change is scary and certainly for those who fear change the most. These people need to be included and remain included. If not we are heading towards very uncertain times. This is something that leaders in the private and public sector have to start acknowledging and act upon. For me it isn’t hard to picture self-driving cars, surgical machines or fully automated ships, I have a hard time picturing what all the people who have lost these jobs will do instead, while I can easily imagine the discontent.

There’s no denying, things change. They always have, but the past always offered alternatives when the paradigm shifted. From what I hear and read these sort of alternatives are not in sight in 2016. Hence the main question of this post: what is acceptable in the current change and what is not? Leaders, public and private, have to make some important choices that decide on the kind of world we all live in. Times are interesting enough as is, thank you.

Every day comes with another digital security breach, surveillance disclosure and what not. The world seems have grown used to it and continues its business as usual. It doesn’t seem to be bad enough to really act.

Every day comes with new stories about the end of the Middle Class, IT taking over jobs in places where up to very recently that was inconceivable, not in people’s wildest dreams would these jobs disappear. Also this is not so terribly disturbing as the news continues without debates on discussing potential limits of IT development for the sake of job security. Earlier this year I had already concluded in a blog post that there are no 21st century Luddites.

Recently people that work in the IT field, whether from a technical angle or IT law, have uttered that they are disturbed by recent developments, the speed of that development and the potential effects of those developments for the individual and society as a whole. Think of the near endless leaking of personal data to hardly known companies and governments, leading to combinations of data being made that can lead to profiling, with unknown impact on a person(‘s private life). The data that is or soon will be generated by the Internet of Things, including apps, sensors, cameras , etc. attached to a person, his personal devices, his home, car, roads, etc., is going to add to that commercial profiling and governments storing even more data on its citizens.

The question that is in need of asking at the turn of 2014 is: What society do you and I want to live in? It is time to start a fundamental discussion on the ethical side of IT development.

The Digital Revolution
In 2014 the world is in a major transition, if not in the midst of a digital revolution. Things happen because they can happen. The technology is there, the will to invest in the development and/or the deployment of that technology also. Faster and faster researchers and inventors come up with new techniques, faster and better software, the hardware to store it in, the gadget to make them more attractive to users. Entrepreneurs find new ways to deploy, use, analyse and sell the resulting data stream.

On the other hand there are (non-suspecting) consumers and users that adapt so fast to this new world. The younger generation does not know any better and is encapsulated totally in this new world. They live a totally different sort of life than all generations before them. Hardly anyone understood the business model of Google, Facebook, etc. at the start of using these services. Perhaps most still do not. It was there, free and easy to use and consumers started using it and quite rightly so. Changes happen so fast, that there is no time for reflection and those who do are just calling out in a desert. No one seems to hear or understand those calling out.

It won’t come as a surprise to you that in the past years I personally have made the digital transition as well. From PC to cell phone, to an Internet connection, to a laptop, to ADSL, to smart phone, to Internet banking, you can find me on a few, not all, social media, etc. Like most people have, and although I had some doubts concerning digital security, there is no stopping the development. Not as an individual and why should we? Things are much easier, often better than before. But should that keep us from asking some serious questions? I do not think so.

IT in politics
At the ecp Year conference, 20 November 2014, I heard a Dutch parliamentarian quoting an unnamed colleague, also an ICT spokesperson, as having said: “but I know nothing about ICT”, in parliament and added: “Suppose that another colleague would say: “I know nothing about health care””, while being the spokesperson of his or her party for health care. That would be unacceptable, while for IT it is acceptable. And that is sort of unacceptable, isn’t it? IT is the defining topic of this decade and about to change the way humans live at least for a considerable period of time if not for ever. In other words, there is no escaping discussing IT and investments, IT and education, IT and cyber security, IT and surveillance, IT and …., IT and ethics. How can a debate about the consequences of IT ever take place if the spokespersons have hardly or even any knowledge of the topic?

I am not saying that parliament is the only place for a debate. Where are trade unions in this discussion? Where are consumer organisations? To name a few. So far only free speech and digital rights activists are heard mostly. Those from the desert.

Conclusion
It is normal and acceptable to discuss ethics in gen technique, cloning, euthanasia, etc. In fact a debate is started before there is any consensus on anything. Where IT and the changes, we all are in the middle of, IT brings to our personal lives, well-being, etc. is concerned, there is mostly ear-shattering silence. While developments race on at the speed of light. It is time that at different levels in society, including parliament, a debate is started on the topic of robotica, domotica, Internet and privacy, commercial personal data analysis, etc. from an ethical point of view.

Ethics and Internet? It is not too late to have that discussion. It may just be an excellent topic for the upcoming (NL)IGF. The Internet Governance Forum can unite different stakeholders, including those with different interests, in this debate and provide topics to reflect on for future use.

Today many people responded quite negatively to the plans of the Dutch bank ING to market the data of its customers in relation to custom made advertisements on the basis of purchases, salary, subsidies, personal data, etc., etc. Data that banks have though pin transactions and online banking that in 2014 almost everybody does nowadays. Your bank sees every transaction and can interpret this and sell or indirectly offer this data to companies interested in marketing. The alternate is to go back to cash. I don’t think so. Is it a bad idea or a brilliant move by ING?

Commercially it undoubtedly is a brilliant idea. There is potentially a lot of money to be made from this data. “Every customer we spoke to was very enthusiastic”, said an ING employee on the 8 o’clock news. Judging from the reactions today, ING may have been speaking to the wrong customers. Fact is that a bank is ideally positioned information wise to sell this sort of data. And why not? Everybody else is doing it. Through an ex-neighbour I know that a company like (NL incumbent telco) KPN was analysing and selling customer data at least since the 1990’s. Nobody complaint. Nobody new the source of all these irritating calls round dinnertime. Not to speak of the economic model of social media. So why can’t ING do a Google or Facebook?

Website security

Next to the fact that I do not wish to see any advertisements when banking online, wasn’t this the weakest link in many websites? All the banners and clickable adds that the website owner doesn’t have any control over? The spots in websites that were easily hackable or manipulated? What about the security of your website, ING? Will ING always know who it’s dealing with? Or just go for the easy money? Or that a few just slip through? Damage done, reputation gone. This may become a genuine concern and grow into a headache file.

Privacy

I’m not even going to go into this. Privacy guard dog CBp will deal with this, I hope at least they are able to show some teeth here. This is not an academic discourse, Mr. Kohnstamm c.s.

Spam

Putting all this aside. If through ING I’m sent commercial adds from third parties, it is down right spam (“unrequested electronic communication”). The moment I receive one, I’ll complain to ACM. Unfortunately the attribution of parties like ING in a case like this, is not dealt with in the Telecommunications Act. Is this different under the Privacy Act? Something that truly needs amending.

If presented on ING’s website it is still unrequested. What this proves to me is that the spam article of European Directive 2002/58 needs updating. There are so many unrequested online add forms out there that it is time for this update. When I visit the website of a bank I expect to read about that bank(‘s products) and not on football shoes, airline tickets, etc., just because I bought that item recently. (Just like I do not want to receive an e-mail from a ticket vendor, straight after the sale, after I wasn’t able to fly cheaper than €2.000 that I can fly for €580 to the same destination! What are these guys thinking?)

Big data is the future, but whether a bank should step into the Google and Facebook business? Only if the money they provide is free from now on. That would be a fair trade. Can I sign on now? In all other cases I’d say: don’t do it. My relationship with a bank is build on trust, privacy and security. All three will be violated. Knowing banks in three years time online banking will rise in price if I do not consent, just like with online banking itself.

Conclusion

To me this, again, looks like an idea that is technically possible, potentially makes a lot of money, so let’s do it. All consequences not having been thought through. Conclusion for now: bad idea.